E 




SPEECH 

"«" OF 

On tiie amendment offered to a bill for th^ 
admission of Missouri into the Union, pre- 
scribing the restriction of slavery as an 
irrevocable principle of the State Constitu- 
tion^ 

DELIVERED IS THE SENATE OF THE tTNITED STATES, 
JAXUART 28, 1820. 



Mr. President ; Conscious that I cannot add to tlie 
force of arguments which have been already urg-ed 
against the proposed amendment, with unrivalled powers 
of eloquence, nothing- but a sense of duty, growing out 
of the peculiar situation in which I stand in relation to 
this question, could induce me to trespass on the patience 
of the Senate. This subject, sir, has produced much ex- 
citement in different sections of the Union ; that excite- 
ment has pervaded the state which I have the honor in 
part to represent; there, too, public meetings have been 
called; opmions in favor of the proposed restriction have 
been expressed, and are publisl>ed under the sanction of 
names deservedly esteemed for talents and integrity. 
The Legislature of that state also, in their wisdom, have 
resolved that the proposed restriction is compatible with 
the constitution, and ought to be adopted as a measure* 
of sound policy. That resolution is now upon your table. 
The opinion of that honorable Legislature justly merits, 
and will ever command my sincere respect. To their 
confidence in me I am indebted for a place in this dig- 
nified assembly : to deserve and retain the good opinion 
of that honorable body will ever be my highest ambition. 
But, sir, as it is my misfortune to differ from them in 
sentiment on the great constitutional question, I am not 
satisfied to give a silent vote. 

The honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania who mov- 
ed the amendment, remarked that it was a question of 
great importance between the people of the United 
States and those of Missouri. It is, sir, a question of im- 
portance, because it involves the construction of the 



t 






2 



great charter of our liberties. The zeal with which the 
amendment has been urg-ed and opposed evinces that it 
excites more than common interest. A question touch- 
ing' the extent of powers delegated to Cong-ress by the 
constitution must ever be deeply interesting; for in its 
decision are implicated the rights reserved to the peo- 
ple, and the sovereignty of the states. It was not, how- 
ever, anticipated that the Declaration of Independence 
would be resorted to as furnishing" a key to the construc- 
tion of the constitution of 1787, or trtat arguments would 
be drawn from that source to g-ive color to a claim of 
power under the latter instrument. Much less was it ex- 
pected that the recital of abstract theoretic principles, 
in a national manifesto in '7&y would be g-ravely urged 
at this day to prove that involuntary servitude does not 
lawfully exist within the United States. To these prin- 
ciples the honorable gentleman has referred, with an air 
of triumphant confidence, reminding us that the whole 
People then united in proclaiming- to the world, " that 
all men are created equal ; that they are endowed by 
their Creator with certain unalienable rig-hts; that among" 
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'* 
Sir, these principles are correct, and intelHgible in the 
political sense in which they were used by the statesmen 
who signed that manifesto. They are the received doc- 
trines of the schools, in relation to man as he is supposed 
to exist in the fancied state of nature. But that indivi- 
duals, entering into society, must give up a share of li- 
berty to preserve the rest, is a truth that requires no de- 
monstration. Those principles formed correct premises 
from which to draw the conclusion, " That to secure 
these right, governments are instituted among men, de- 
riving their just powers from the consent of the govern- 
ed ; that the people have a right to alter or to abolish 
*one form of government and to institute new govern- 
ment.'* They also formed correct premises from which 
(under existing oppression) was drawn the inference, 
*« that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to 
be, free and independent states." But, Mr. President, 
the distinguished statesmen who pledged to each other 
" their lives, their fortunes^ and their sacred honor," in 
support of that declaration, were not visionary theorists; 
they were men of sound, practical, common sense, and, 
from the premises assumed) arrived at sound practical 
conclusions. When we call to mind the state of this 
young country at that awful moment, struggling for the 
right of self government, engaged in war with the most 
powerful nation of Europe, pressed on all sides with ac- 
cumulating difficulties and dangers, can it be credited 



that the Declaration of Independence was designed to 
dissolve the bonds of social order throughout the states 
— to reduce all men to a state of nature, and to set at 
large a host of slaves, the readiest instruments to be 
employed by the enemy in the work of destruction, in 
the very bosom of the nation ? Think you, sir, that it 
was meant to invoke the genius of universal emancipa- 
tion, and to proclaim liberty and equality to every hu- 
man being who breath.ed the air, and trod the soil of thii* 
new republic ? The faith of that man who can believe 
this is mtich stronger than mine. No, sir, that manifesto 
was not intended, was not understood to abolish or to 
alter any law then existing in any state for the security 
of property, or for the regulation of their internal con- 
cerns. Self-preservation, a regard for their own personal 
safety and that of their families, and a regard for the 
best interests of the nation, forbade those sages to do 
such an act. But, sir, were slaves liberated in any state 
of the Union by virtue of the Declaration of Indepen- 
dence ? Never. On the contrary, wherever emancipa- 
tion has been effected, it has been by the authority of 
state laws ; and every state has assumed, and invariably 
exercised, at its discretion, the right of legislating about 
this class of persons, down to the present day. Penn- 
sylvania, so justly applauded for her benevolence to- 
wards these persons, did not admit that they obtained 
freedom under the Declaration of Independence, for she 
undertook to loose their chains gradually, by her own 
legislative authority, in 1780; and, even at this moment, 
some are held in involuntary servitude in that state. In 
truth, sir, we cannot advance a step in the history of the 
Revolution without meeting evidence that there were in 
the nation two separate classes — freemen, and those who 
were not free. Consult the Articles of Confederation, 
emanating immediately from the act of Independence, 
and signed by many of the same men who signed that De- 
claration, and, in article 4, " free inhabitants of each state," 
and " free citizens," designate the persons who were to 
enjoy privileges and immunities under that government, 
plainly indicatmg that there was another class of persons 
in the country, who were not free and not entitled to 
those privileges. Consult the treaty of 1783, which ac- 
knowledged the independence of these states, and you 
will read a stipulation, on the part of the British, for the 
restoring " of negroes or other propejrty ot the Ameri- 
can inhabitants." 

Another war with the same power has been recently 
waged, and is happily terminated by the treaty of Ghent, 
ip which you again find a stipulation for the restoration 



of " slaves or other property." Sir, the Federal ConsliV 
tution, whose powers are now under examination, in pro- 
viding- for the delivering- up of fugitives from labor, held 
to service under the laws of a state, recognizes as well 
the existence of such a class of persons, as that they are 
held under the laws of the state. Open your statute 
book, examine the different acts which have been passed 
at different periods, in which it became necessary to no- 
tice this class of persons, and you shall be forced to ac- 
knowledge that Congress has enacted laws recognizing 
them as property ; sometimes describing them as fugi- 
tives from labor, at others, calling them slaves. Thus, 
sir, the act of 12th Feb. 1793, provides for executing the 
constitutiona' provision relative to fugitives from labor. 
The statute erecting Louisiana into two territories, in 
1804, in the same 10th section which was read by the 
honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, speaks in plain- 
er language where it provides, " that no slave or slaves 
shall directly or indirectly be introduced into said terri- 
tory, except by a citizen of the United States, removing' 
into said territory for actual settlement, and being at the 
time of such removal, bona fide owner of such slave or 
slaves.'* This section, sir, establishes two facts : First, 
that a citizen of the United States may be bona fide own- 
er of slaves. Second, that such citizen had the right of 
removing with his slaves from any state, into the newly 
acquired territory of Louisiana. 

By the act of 2d March, 1807, to prohibit the slave trade 
after the first of January following, the 9th section re- 
gulates the carrying of slaves coastwise, from one port 
to another in the Unitefi States, and prescribes the form 
of an oath to be taken by the captain of the vessel and 
the owner or shipper of the slave ; apart of which oath 
is, " that under the laws of the state they are held to ser- 
vice or labor." From this cursory review, Mr. Presi- 
dent, 1 am justified in assuming that the articles of con- 
federation, public treaties, the Federal Constitution, re- 
peated declarations of Congress in statutes, passed under 
that Constitution, connected with the history of the coun- 
try, and the uniform course of state legislation — establish 
incontrovertibly that involuntary servitude has existed 
and yet exists in the United States, and has ever been 
universally acknowledged to be a subject of state juris- 
diction. Yes, sir, however painful the reflection, truth 
compels us to acknowledge that the evil still exists ; it 
has been entailed upon the nation by the avarice of Bri- 
tain, forcing upon her infant colonies a slave population, 
against their will, against their humble petitions, against 
th^ir spirited remonstrances. 



[Mr. Roberts rose to explain, and said he should not 
contend that slavery does not exist in the old United 
States, but should insist that Congress had a right to pro- 
hibit it in the territories, and to impose on Missouri the 
terms proposed by the amendment.] 

Mr. President, the honorable gentleman in opening 
the Debate, did assume the Declaration of Independence 
as the broad ground of his argument. From his course 
of reasoning, I was impressed with the belief that he 
meant to enforce those principles in their full extent, and 
his declaration to me personally a few minutes since, that 
he intended to go the whole length of those principles, 
confirmed the impression. But, sir, as such intention is 
now disavowed, I forbear to press the argument further. 

I proceed, sir, to examine the constitutional question 
which the amendment presents. Happily, Mr. Presi- 
dent, we are not investigating the principles of a Gov- 
ernment whose origin is buried in the rubbish of antiqui- 
ty — whose powers are to be collected from history or 
tradition— which rehes on precedent and usage to give 
color to the usurpation of power in every emergency : 
acquiring new vigor from every succeeding precedent; 
and often from precedents created in times of foreign 
war and domestic violence. Happily for this nation, its 
Constitution is a written instrument, framed in a time of 
peace, with care and deliberation, by the most enhght- 
ened men, and penned with all the accuracy and preci- 
sion that !-erious thought and calm reflection could en- 
sure. Its history is brief, and known to all : the time and 
manner of its creation, the circumstances attending its 
adoption are recent and famihar. Many of the enlight- 
ened statesmen whose talents and labors were devoted to 
this great work, yet hve to share the honors which their 
grateful country "bestows, as a reward due to their dis- 
tinguished merit. 

We must remember, then, Mr. President, that it is a 
written compact, thus created, thus adopted, whose pow- 
ers we examine. To insure a correct result, it is proper 
to bring into view certain rules of reason and common 
sense, applicable to the construction of all written in- 
struments. That we must look to the intention of the 
parties, as the polar star, is the great leading rule of 
construction. This rule apphes with equal force to the 
contracts of individuals in private life— to compacts be- 
tween sovereign, independent states, as public treaties, 
and to a compact between the people and government, 
in the form of a consttution. To ascertain the intention 
of the parties, and to execute the compact in good faith, 
is the duty of an honest statesman. The intention, sir, is 
1* 



most naturally and safely collected from the language 
and expressions used in relation to the subject matter. If 
the expressions be so indefinite or inartificial as to leave 
the intention doubtful, a comparison may be made of 
different parts of the instrument for elucidation, and from 
that comparison an intention maybe inferred not incom- 
patible with what is plainly and certainly expressed. 
Should doubts still remain, the mind recurs to the situa- 
tion of the parties at the time of the compact, and judg- 
es, from the known condition of the parties, how far the 
proposed construction may comport with reason and good 
sense. TJiese are means used, under different circum- 
stances, to arrive at truth. In examining a claim of pow- 
er under this constitution, when we recur to the specific 
enumeration of powers, attend to the prohibitions there 
written, and read that jealous declaration of the tenth a- 
mendment, that all power not granted is reserved, the 
conclusion is irresistible, that the U. States' government 
is one of limited powers ; that, although supreme and so- 
vereign as to all matters within its legitimate sphere of 
action, yet it cannot claim a general, unhmited sovereign- 
ty. The people have created state governments also, 
and have delegated to them other portions of power- 
within the state limits, for the regulation and manage- 
ment of their internal, domestic concernsi A British 
statesman may boast of the omnipotence of a British Par- 
liament; but an American statesman will never claim the 
attribute oi omnipotence for an American Congress. 
Need I adduce any authority to establish this position ? I 
refer to the opinion of the hig-hest judicial tribunal ia 
this nation. " This government (^say the Supreme Court, 
in the celebrated U. S. Bank cause,) is acknowledged by 
all to be one of enumerated powers. I'he principle that it 
can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seera 
too apparent to have required to be enforced by all 
those arguments which its enlightened friends, while it 
was depending before the people, found it necesssary to 
urge That principle is universally admitted." And, 
again : " We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of 
the government are limited, and that its limits are not to 
be transcended." With this agree the opmions of dis- 
tinguished statesmen, addressed to the people, while the 
constitution was under consideration. Mr Madison, in 
No. 45 of the Federalist, says, " The powers delegated by 
the proposed constitution to tlie federal government, are 
few and defined ; those which are to remain to the state 
governments, are numerous and indefinite." 

To the advocates of power, in any instance, the people 
^ay with propriety say, shew the grant of the power iji 



the constitution. It is incumbent on you to shew either 
that it is g-ranted as a substantive, independent power, or 
that it is incidental to such a power, by being necessary 
and proper to be used as a mean to carry such power in- 
to execution. If you cannot shew this, your claim is bad, 
your pretens.on must fail. In the present instance you 
search m vaip. among- the enumerated powers of Con- 
gress : examine tlie whole catalogue, with the most scru- 
tinizuig eye, it is jiot f..und there : proceed to the sec- 
tion which enumerates all that is prohibited to the states, 
nothing there written can fur: ish a plausible ground to 
infer that such a power was intended to be delegated to 
Congress. It is not then a substantive, independent 
power, specified and defined m the general enumeration 
of powers ; nor can it, in my view, be raised by necessary 
implication. Can it with any color of right be asserted, 
as a rower necessary and proper for carrying into effect 
any of the specified powers? Here, sir, the advocates 
of the amendment are equally embarrassed. With which 
of the specified powers is it connected ; which of them 
calls upon it for aid, or which of them can receive any 
aid from it ? Is it necessary to aid in laying and coUecting 
taxes, borrowing money, or regulating commerce ? Sir, 
you shall name, in succession, every power enumerated 
m this instrument, examine and consider them in all 
their various bearings and relations to the interests and 
concerns of this nation, and reason and candor siiall com- 
pel you to acknowledge that the power now claimed to 
mpose this restriction, has not the remotest connection 
with any of them. 

But, Mr. President, it is contended that, though not 
expressly granted, yet the power may be fairly inferred. 
It is somewhat unfortunate, however, that the friends of 
this amendment cannot agree among themselves as to the 
article and section : f the constitution from which it may 
be inferred. One honorable gentleman points to the 9th 
section of the Istarticle : « The migration or importation of 
such persons as any of the states now existing shall think 
proper to admit shall not be prohibited by Confess 
prior to the year 1808." He contends that the persons 
here referred to are slaves, and that, as the prohibition 
was limited to a period of time now past, Congress may 
now interdict the migration of citizens, with their slaves 
from one state to another, or from the old states to the^ 
new state of Missouri. The attempt to infer so important 
a power from this prohibitory clause, is novel, unprece- 
dented, and dangerous ; and, in my humble opinion, is 
contrary to the genius of the constitution, containing' an 
enumeration of the delegated powers, which was penned 



8 

with care and precision, and cannot reasonably be pre- 
sumed to leave such a power to be extracted from a pro- 
hibition. Such inference is, therefore, denied. Further, 
sir, it is not granted that " mig-ration" was intended to 
apply to " slaves," though " importation" does ; having 
a reference to the general power of regulating com- 
merce, by virtue of which Congress might liave imposed 
a prohibitory duty on the importation ©f slaves, at their 
discretion. Tills right was, therefore, restrained, for a 
certain time, at the instance of the southern states. But 
the permitted duty is confined to the " importation," 
leaving the " migration" free. Migration also, as was 
justly remarked by an honorable gentleman from Geor- 
gia, implies free agency, and the exercise of will, in the 
persons migrating, which cannot correctly be predicated 
of a slave. But, sir, even if the word " migration" be 
construed to apply to slaves, as well as the word " im- 
portation" in that clause, yet I deny that it was intended 
to refer to the several states, or to give Congress the 
power at will to prevent the removal of a citizen, with his 
family and property, (and slaves may come under both 
descriptions) from one state to another. The term mi- 
gration, associated with importation, must be taken to 
refer to a foreign country or territory, as the " termi- 
nus a quo :" the migration begins, and therefore applies 
only to foreigners, not to inhabitants ofthe United Slates, 
In this sense it is used in tiie Declaration of Indepen- 
dence, which furnishes a standard construction in a prior 
state paper, to which we may safely refer, and most pro- 
bably the term was transplanted from that instrument into 
this constitution. In the recital there of grievances which 
the colonies had suffered at the hands of tlie King, we 
read : " He has endeavored to prevent the population of 
these states ; for that purpose obstructing the laws for 
the naturalization o^ foreigners — refusing to pass others 
to encourage their migration hither ;" evidently mean- 
ing the migration of foreigners from a foreign country to 
the states, and as evidently excluding slaves, who were 
not persons to whom naturalization laws applied. 

Surely, sir, a power to prohibit freemen from remove- 
ing from one state to another, with their families and 
property, ought not to depend on abstruse reasonifig, or 
uncertain inference, or be raised by implication in a 
written constitution. What is it, but a power to create a 
state prison of a slave-holding state ; to incarcerate the ci- 
tizens of the southern states with their black population, 
or reduce them to the r.iinous alternative of abandoning 
their lands, as the only means of escaping from a state of 
confinement the most odious that can be imagined ? Think 



you, sir, that such was the intention of those who signed 
that instrument and recommended it to their fellow citi- 
zens ? Think you, sir, that the people of the southern 
states, in adopting the constitution, meant to delegate 
such a power to Congress ? It would be a waste of time 
to reason upon the question. Sir, it is incredible that 
such could be the intention of the parties to that com- 
pact ; and strangely will it be distorted and perverted, 
if the term "m gration," in this prohibitory clause, can 
be made the basis on which to raise this colossal power. 
Should such a construction prevail, lamentably short, in- 
deed, 1 fear will be the duration of this boasted palladium 
©f American liberty. 

Other honorable gentlemen imagine they can find a 
warrant for imposing this restriction in the third section 
of the foiu-th article :« Congress shall have power to 
dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations res- 
pecting the territory or other property of the United 
States." In answering this pretension, it is not necesssry 
to deny to Congress all the power there expressed over 
the territory of the United States ; and if Congress 
were now engaged in making rules and regulations res- 
pecting such territory, this clause would support the 
claim of power. But, sir, so far from legislating, to dis- 
pose of, or make regulations respecting, territory, the 
bill on your table provides for relinquishing the territo- 
rial government ; raises the people of Missouri to the 
dignity of self government ; empowers them to form a 
constitution; to assume the ch racter of an independent 
state, and, as such, to take equal rank with the other 
states of this Union. Such a bill is directly opposed to 
the last recited clause, and therefore that clause can 
give no color to the exercise of a power, designed to 
operate not on the territory, but on the state, at and 
from the moment of its birth. 

It has been further insisted, Mr. President, that the 
provision, that " new states may be admitted by the Con- 
gress into this Union," vests Congress with a discretiona- 
ry power to admit or refuse, and, therefore,that Congress 
may prescribe terms and conditions of admission. Sir, 
the premises may be true, the conclusion may be false. 
It is not denied that the word "may," in its ordinary 
sense, imports a discretion to act or not ; but in this 
clause it can give no power beyond the exercise of the 
will to admit or refuse admission ; and cannot, by fair, 
reasonable construction, confer a power to impose terms 
whi h impairthe sovereignty ofthestaleto be admitted. 
In the exercise of a power derived from a political com- 
pact, or created by law, in the use of which others be- 



10 

skies the actor have an iiitei*est,it is tlie rule of reason and 
sense, that, to be exercised fairly, it must be exercised 
not capriciously, but with sound discretion ; always re- 
garding" the just rights of those who are int.rested. The 
people of Missouri having an immediate interest in the 
exercise of this power, claim admission under the guar- 
rentee of a solemn treaty of cession, which provides 
that *» the inhtibitants of the ceded territory shall be in- 
corparated in the Union of the United States ;" and ad- 
mitted, as soon as possible, according to the principles of 
the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of al? the. 
rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the Uni- 
ted States. Under this treaty, part of the ceded terri- 
tory has been admitted as a state, without such restric- 
tion as is now attempted to be imposed on Missouri ; and, 
so far, the treaty has been expounded and executed in 
good faith. This treaty, solemnly ratified, appeals to the 
honor and justice of the nation for faithful execution, as 
soon as possible.V The United Stares stand in tlie charac- 
ter of a trustee for the people of the ceded territory, and, 
"whenever they attain a capacity to accept a surrender of 
the trust, the surrender should be promptly made, and 
the estate delivered up, unimpaired and unfettered by 
conditions and restrictions not contemplated in the deed 
by which the trust was created. If, then, sir, Missouri 
has attained the competent degree of population and 
strength to entitle her to self government, according to 
the principles of the federal constitution, as the bill on 
your table admits. Congress is bound to admit her into 
the Union without delay, as freely as other parts of the 
ceded territory has been admitted, without imposing a 
restriction that impairs her state sovereignty ; since neith- 
er the constitution nor the treaty grants power to impose 
that restriction, j — — 

This power then, so strenuously contended for, is not 
found among the specified or enumerated powers dele- 
g'ated to Congress ; it is not a power which can be claim- 
ed as necessary and proper to carry into execution any 
specified power, and, in my opinion,cannot reasonably be 
raised by implication from the different parts of the Con- 
stitution on which its advocates rely. 

V,13ut, Mr. President, instead of being surprised that 
such a power is not found in the charter, it would be 
cause of inexpressible surprise if it were found there; for 
I am convinced the people never designed to grant it. — 
This charter was designed to govern and regulate the 
great political national concerns of the Union, not to in- 
terfere with the internal regulations, the private or do- 
mestic concerns of the states.\Such is the opinion of the 



ii 

disting"uished statesmen, to whom I before referred. 
Mr. Madis(;n, in tl:e same number of rhe Federalist be- 
fore cited,after informing- the people that the powers de- 
legated to the federal government are few and defined — 
those that remain to the states niimerous and indefinite, 
adds, "the former will be exercised principally on exter- 
nal objects, as war, peace, negociationj and foreign 
commei ce,with which last, the powers of taxation will for 
the most part be connected. The power reserved to the 
sevtral states will extend to all the objects, wliich, in the 
ordinary course of affairs, concern ihe lives, liberties, and 
properties of the people, and the internal order, im- 
provement, and prosperity of the state ;*' and, in the suc- 
ceeding number, speaking of the state t;overnments, he 
adds, " By the superintending care of these, all the more 
domestic and personal interests of the people will be re- 
gulated and provided for." The same distinction is re- 
peated by Mr. Hamilton, in No. 84. " But a minute de- 
tail ©f particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a 
Constitution like that under consideration, which is mere- 
ly intended to regulate th< general pohtical interests of 
the ftation, than to a Constitution which has the regula- 
tion of every species of personal and private concerns." 
V Sir, it must be admitted by every statesman, that this 
JConstitution never was designed tohavt jurisdiction over 

jWthe domestic concerns of the people, in the several states. 

7 No, sir, these are wisely left exclusively to the state sov- 
ereignites, as their natural guardianSi The proposed 
amendment, if adopted, will regulate, by an irrevocable 
provision in a statute, one of the domestic relations of the 
people of the state of Missouri. Can this be denied? 
Need [ name to this Senate what are appropriately term- 
ed the domestic relations of civil life ^ They are those of 
husband and wife — to which happily succeeds that of pa- 
e ntand child, too often followed by that of guardian and 
ward — with all which is c nnected that of master and ser- 
vant; either ryvo]unti;ry or involuntary servitude. These» 
sir, with peculiar propriety and truth, are denonrinated 
" the domestic relations." They exist in the bosom of 
the family — in the humble walks of private hfe, and have 
no connection with tlie general political interests of the 
Union. If Congress can regulate one, why not all of these 
domestic relations ? They all stand on the same level, and 
if one be within the grasp of your power, what shall ex- 
empt or protect the rest .'' Even the contract of marriage 
and the period of release from guardianship ma\ become 
the subject of discussion in some future Congress, on the 
admission of some future state. If such a power exist, 
who shall stay its hand, or prescribe its limits .' Sir, the 



• ^^ 

proposed restriction, is a direct invasion of the sovereigu- 
ty of the state- it will wrest from Missouri that power 
which belong-s to every state in the Union, to regulate its 
domestic concerns, according- to the will of the people. 
But further, Mr. President, it cannot escape observation, 
that, to accomplish the proposed object. Congress must 
invent a new mode of legislation — a legislation in perpe- 
tuity. In the common course of legislation, every law is 
subject to be altered, or repealed, according to the wis-" 
dom and discretion of any future legislature. Here you 
transcend the power of any legislative body known to a 
republic — ^you impose by statute a restriction to be and 
remain irrevocable forever. To such a dilemma the usur- 
pation of power leads. What then, Mr. President, is the 
true character of this bill, with such an amendment ? Not 
simply a law — but a law to make, in part, a Constitution 
for the future state of Missouri : nav, more, to make her 
Constitution in that point unalterable forever, and place 
it beyond the power of the people. Is not this depriving 
the people of their acknowledged rights, and the state of 
part of its legitimate sovereignty ? If Congress can thus, 
by anticipation, make part of a Constitution for a state, 
and force it upon her as a condition precedent to her ad- 
mission, why may not Congress make other parts of her 
Constitution under the form of other conditions — the 
power is the same, the right is equalj If, sir, the people of 
Missouri be thus compelled to mould their state Consti- 
tution according to the mandate of Congress, must not 
Missouri enter the Union shorn of some of those beams 
of sovereignty that encircle her sister states — can she be 
said to stand upon an equal fooling with them ? Let truth 
and candor answer. \ 
I But, sir, to thi^ objection it is replied that simi- 
lar terms were prescribed to the states of Ohio, Indi- 
ana, and Illinois. True. Recollect, however, that the 
condition of those states was, in every respect, different 
from the condition of Misso\U'i. The ordinance of 1787, 
passed by Congress, under the articles of confederation, 
was tendered to the settlers in the North-Western Ter- 
ritory, (whether with or without authority, is immate- 
rial now,) as a compact and agreement The settlers 
there knew of this compact — made their arrangements 
accordingly — society there was formed and moulded on 
the principles of that ordinance, and was thus gradu- 
ally prepared to adopt the same principles in the state 
constitutions; and, under these circumstances, the terms 
were proposad, without opposition, and met the appro- 
pation of the people. The maxim, " volenti non fit In- 
^inia," applies, with pecuhar force, to such a case. Dif- 



13 

ferent, in all respects, is the case of Missouri : part of a 
territory acquired by treaty from a foreign power— ne- 
ver subject to the ordinance of 1787— involuntary servi- 
tude existed there at the time of cession, and still exists— 
the people object to this restriction— insist upon their 
rig-hts, under the treaty — and deny your power to im- 
pose such a condition. Under circumstances so entirely 
dissimilar, the North- Western States furnish not even 
the frail authority of precedent to bind Missouri./ 

If Congress really possess a power to interdict the 
mig-ration of slaves, and to confine them within the 
states where they are now settled, where is the necessi- 
ty of attempting to effect that object, indirectly and par- 
tially, by the proposed restriction ? If that power exist, as 
is contended.Congress can, at discretion, effect the object, 
by a general law, equally binding all the states. And, sir, 
to me, such course would appear more dignified than to 
force on a new state so humiUating a condition. /To my 
mind, however, it is cle?.r, Mr. President, that Congress 
does not possess power to impose this restriction upon 
the people of Missouri, and that to exercise it will be fla- 
grant usurpation, jf he legitimate business of Congress is 
to enact laws, not to make constitutions. But, sir, if it be 
only a doubtful question, wisdom and sound policy and a 
regard for the peace and harmony of the Union, forbid the 
attempt to exercise it. /This government, deriving all its 
powers by immediate grants from the people, relies, for 
its support, nay, for its existence, on the good opinion and 
confidence of the people. These it will have, as long as it 
is beheved that the powers delegated to Congress are 
honestly exercised for the general welfare. Influenced 
by this sentiment, the people will ever be found wiUing 
subjects of this constitution, and the government will be 
strong, powerfil, nay, invincible. But, sir, if Congress 
shall pursue a course that gives just cause to suspect 
that they are grasping at power beyond the grant ; that 
they are trenching on the powers reserved to the peo 
pie, or invading the sovereignty of the states; ;t requires 
not prophetic vision to predict the result/ The same spi- 
rit that resisted British tyranny, will resist usurpation 
from any quarter ; to the people it will be indifferent 
whether oppression comes under an edict from a British 
Parliament or from an American Congress. And, sir, how- 
ever strong this government may feel, supported by the 
confidence of the states and the affections of the people, 
it is not wise to try its strength under a doubtful power, 
against a number of respectable states./ 

I rose, Mr. President, to express my ideas upon the 
constitutional question alone — the treaty of cession inti- 
mately connected with the question,prcsents also serious 



14 

difficulties in the way — but that part of the subject has 
been already exhausted by honorable gentlemen who 
preceded me. As to the expediency, 1 will only add, 
that no measure which violates the constitution can be 
expedient ; no measure that jeopardizes the internal 
peace of the Union, and stakes the constitution, upon an 
act of doubtful power, can be deemed a measure of wis- 
dom or sound policy. 

Such, Mr. President, being my sincere convictions, in 
relation to the great constitutional question, which the 
amendment presents ; my duty is plain though unplea- 
sant, I must vote against that amendment. 




^ V 1-90 zee 1. 1-0 





ssBaoNOOdOAdvaan 



